Lol, dude. In any other scenario, you would understand that McDonalds can't buy our government and then make the laws that govern fast food industries. This is where we are. Stakeholder capitalism is the new brand being worn by companies to give credibility to this idea. The governments need to comply with their wishes for the world, not the other way around. This is a disaster waiting to happen. This is not shareholder capitalism. You know nothing of which you speak.

What are you saying?  First you say, "Stakeholder capitalism is the new brand being worn by companies to give credibility to this idea."  Then you say, "This is not shareholder capitalism."  Which one is it?  You seem to be saying they are faking their stakeholder capitalism, then you say they are not practicing shareholder capitalism.  Which one do you think they are actually practicing?  

I'm just trying to understand what you are saying, because you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Stakeholder capitalism is fundamentally different than shareholder capitalism. Stakeholder brands itself a more caring form of shareholder capitalism, which it isn't. The reason they hide behind that "brand" is because people would object to corporations controlling our governments. How does that not make sense?

---

Lol, dude. In any other scenario, you would understand that McDonalds can't buy our government and then make the laws that govern fast food industries. This is where we are. Stakeholder capitalism is the new brand being worn by companies to give credibility to this idea. The governments need to comply with their wishes for the world, not the other way around. This is a disaster waiting to happen. This is not shareholder capitalism. You know nothing of which you speak.

What policy change did McDonalds buy?

It was just a hypothetical, dude.

---

What are you saying?  First you say, "Stakeholder capitalism is the new brand being worn by companies to give credibility to this idea."  Then you say, "This is not shareholder capitalism."  Which one is it?  You seem to be saying they are faking their stakeholder capitalism, then you say they are not practicing shareholder capitalism.  Which one do you think they are actually practicing?  

I'm just trying to understand what you are saying, because you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Stakeholder capitalism is fundamentally different than shareholder capitalism. Stakeholder brands itself a more caring form of shareholder capitalism, which it isn't. The reason they hide behind that "brand" is because people would object to corporations controlling our governments. How does that not make sense?

That's exactly what I have been saying.  Stakeholder capitalism is not real.  It's PR.  Corporations practice shareholder capitalism, by which I mean that they operate solely in the interests of the shareholders, and if they don't do that, the management will be looking for another job very quickly.  And that's as it should be.  

But I have another question for you.  Serious question, not an argument.  How would you rein in corporate influence over our government?

---

CNN is promoting an clip of Fareed Zakaria interviewing Jon Stewart.  Jon nails it in my opinion, pointing out that three people have already gone to jail after working closely with Trump, and at least one of them clearly took the fall for Trump.  But he then says this is about more than Trump.  For him it's about how if you're rich enough and powerful enough in this country, you simply won't be prosecuted for crimes other than maybe rape or murder.  He says the average person knows this well, and they've been mad about it for a long time.  Stewart says that the American people were attracted to Trump in part because they thought Trump might dismantle this legal privilege that rich people clearly have. That rings true to me.
But Trump obviously wasn't willing OR able to make any progress in that area.  The phrase is overused, but I mean it literally.  If you think he was willing to dismantle elite privilege, he must not have been able.  If you think he was able to dismantle elite privilege, then he must not have been willing.  The privilege clearly remains.  And today I think it's obvious that Trump benefits from a lot of that privilege.  This Manhattan DA case is mostly BS, but what about the bank fraud? What about the fraudulent charity?  Corrine Brown went to jail for less.  But I digress.
All that said, is the remedy to all this elite impunity as simple as "get money out of politics"? If so, how do we "get money out of politics"? What are examples of places that have done this?  Is there anything to learn from state level election law?

I stand by the idea of having single item bills.  No riders, no additions, every issue goes to an up or down vote on its own merit.  I firmly believe that will remove a lot of the corruption and influence peddling as well as money at the federal level.  It will also push much of the legislation back to the state level where it belongs.

I think that's an attractive solution, however, the point where one bill becomes two bills is a judgement call.  And who gets to make the judgement?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Stakeholder capitalism is fundamentally different than shareholder capitalism. Stakeholder brands itself a more caring form of shareholder capitalism, which it isn't. The reason they hide behind that "brand" is because people would object to corporations controlling our governments. How does that not make sense?

That's exactly what I have been saying.  Stakeholder capitalism is not real.  It's PR.  Corporations practice shareholder capitalism, by which I mean that they operate solely in the interests of the shareholders, and if they don't do that, the management will be looking for another job very quickly.  And that's as it should be.  

But I have another question for you.  Serious question, not an argument.  How would you rein in corporate influence over our government?

I've told you. Tether income. The elite have far too much political capital. Outside of that, transparency and accountability have to come back. We need to take money out of politics (thanks op) and get our politicians working for us. This doesn't happen when none of them go to jail, or when we bail out failures, or allow public secret meetings in which these people gather and plan their futures.

We are still saying different things, thou. Stakeholder capitalism IS real in that they don't want to be beholden to their shareholders anymore, but they can't just say that, so they dress it up. They are truly moving away from the shareholder model in an attempt to consolidate their power and better position themselves in the future, even if that means their shareholders take losses. They are literally willing to sacrifice their shareholders so that they can retain their power as a new, global government emerges. Stakeholder capitalism is global government run by corporations.

---

I stand by the idea of having single item bills.  No riders, no additions, every issue goes to an up or down vote on its own merit.  I firmly believe that will remove a lot of the corruption and influence peddling as well as money at the federal level.  It will also push much of the legislation back to the state level where it belongs.

I think that's an attractive solution, however, the point where one bill becomes two bills is a judgement call.  And who gets to make the judgement?

Just make it single page bills. Or 10 page bills. Something people can actually read.

---

I stand by the idea of having single item bills.  No riders, no additions, every issue goes to an up or down vote on its own merit.  I firmly believe that will remove a lot of the corruption and influence peddling as well as money at the federal level.  It will also push much of the legislation back to the state level where it belongs.

I think that's an attractive solution, however, the point where one bill becomes two bills is a judgement call.  And who gets to make the judgement?

In theory it should be easily distinguished but I can see where funding a specific project could blur the lines.  Probably how we arrived at the mess we are currently in.  I guess if there were a challenge in that regard the courts would have to decide.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I think that's an attractive solution, however, the point where one bill becomes two bills is a judgement call.  And who gets to make the judgement?

In theory it should be easily distinguished but I can see where funding a specific project could blur the lines.  Probably how we arrived at the mess we are currently in.  I guess if there were a challenge in that regard the courts would have to decide.

Here's a practical example.
About 25 years ago, environmentalists came up with a plan to restore the everglades while bypassing the state legislature.  It was a constitutional amendment.  The FL Supreme Court was hostile.  The plan was to constitutionally mandate a minimum penny per pound tax on sugar produced in FL.  The legislature would be allowed to raise the tax, but not lower it.  The money would be required to be spent on buying up sugar farms and restoring them, the legislature would be unable to divert it or store it up.  As you see, that's all a system of ideas that all have to go together.  On their own, they are pointless.  The FL Supreme Court decided that this system violated the one topic rule for constitutional amendments, however.  They let the amendment proposal stay, after they split it into two ballot items.  Predictably, people thought the fund for glades restoration sounded pretty good, and that became law.  But the people decided that minimum tax rates sounded bad, and nixed that.  So we had this nice fund with no money in it.  A dog with no legs.  

All of this mucking around happened because it was obvious to the activists that Florida legislators, even though they have term limits, even though more of them come from tourist areas than farming areas, even though they come from both parties, effectively all of them are bought and paid for by Big Sugar.  

So we did term limits, and competitive elections, and reduced gerrymandering, and none of it worked.  Then this "common sense" constraint to limit referenda to one topic frustrated our attempt to work around it.

Yet you better believe that if the Legislature or the CRC wants to amend something, there is no single subject rule.  That's for us, not them.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's exactly what I have been saying.  Stakeholder capitalism is not real.  It's PR.  Corporations practice shareholder capitalism, by which I mean that they operate solely in the interests of the shareholders, and if they don't do that, the management will be looking for another job very quickly.  And that's as it should be.  

But I have another question for you.  Serious question, not an argument.  How would you rein in corporate influence over our government?

I've told you. Tether income. The elite have far too much political capital. Outside of that, transparency and accountability have to come back. We need to take money out of politics (thanks op) and get our politicians working for us. This doesn't happen when none of them go to jail, or when we bail out failures, or allow public secret meetings in which these people gather and plan their futures.

We are still saying different things, thou. Stakeholder capitalism IS real in that they don't want to be beholden to their shareholders anymore, but they can't just say that, so they dress it up. They are truly moving away from the shareholder model in an attempt to consolidate their power and better position themselves in the future, even if that means their shareholders take losses. They are literally willing to sacrifice their shareholders so that they can retain their power as a new, global government emerges. Stakeholder capitalism is global government run by corporations.

When you say "tether income," what do you mean by that?

---

The highest paid earner in a company can only make (x)amount more than the lowest earner. That gets capped at (x)median household income. Currently, I'm thinking 100 times more is the sweet spot, but I'd like to find an open-minded economist to run numbers on this theory. If your lowest earner makes 30k a year, the highest can make 3 million, but he can't make more than 7 million per year if the median household income is only 70k. This is capitalism that caps the most paid among us, but doesn't actually obstruct the market.

---

The highest paid earner in a company can only make (x)amount more than the lowest earner. That gets capped at (x)median household income. Currently, I'm thinking 100 times more is the sweet spot, but I'd like to find an open-minded economist to run numbers on this theory. If your lowest earner makes 30k a year, the highest can make 3 million, but he can't make more than 7 million per year if the median household income is only 70k. This is capitalism that caps the most paid among us, but doesn't actually obstruct the market.

Think about how many little corporations and trusts the Fanjul Brothers might control.
They could collect 100x worker income at each of those.
Then think about the fact that they don't have to use their personal wealth fund their political activities.  It may be a business expense.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

They are capped to 100x the household median income, no matter what.

---

So, they could own a couple companies, or do well in stocks, but the limit is 100x the household median income, regardless of the lowest paid employee.

---

What are you saying?  First you say, "Stakeholder capitalism is the new brand being worn by companies to give credibility to this idea."  Then you say, "This is not shareholder capitalism."  Which one is it?  You seem to be saying they are faking their stakeholder capitalism, then you say they are not practicing shareholder capitalism.  Which one do you think they are actually practicing?  

I'm just trying to understand what you are saying, because you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Stakeholder capitalism is fundamentally different than shareholder capitalism. Stakeholder brands itself a more caring form of shareholder capitalism, which it isn't. The reason they hide behind that "brand" is because people would object to corporations controlling our governments. How does that not make sense?

Yes, I understand the difference.  What threw me off was your saying they were faking stakeholder capitalism and also not practicing shareholder capitalism, which makes it sound like you think they are doing neither one.   I was of the opinion it had to be one or the other.  But you have introduced a third possibility, which is that they are doing something else.  

I think it's still shareholder capitalism, because shareholders own the company and basically control the company.  You and I don't seem to agree on that, but I have a feeling we would be going back and forth for a year on that one.  To me, to the extent that corporations attempt to control the government, it is for the purpose of maximizing their profits for the benefit of the shareholders.  You seem to think it is something even more sinister than that.  But I don't think a corporation has any desire other than maximizing their profits.  To the extent that they pursue power, it is all for the purpose of making money.

---

They are capped to 100x the household median income, no matter what.

---

So, they could own a couple companies, or do well in stocks, but the limit is 100x the household median income, regardless of the lowest paid employee.

But how does that help? They already have a pile of wealth that would keep growing, and, as I said, they can simply fund their political activities from their business rather than their personal wealth, and they would probably spend the same amount of money, asking for the same things.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

They are capped to 100x the household median income, no matter what.

---

So, they could own a couple companies, or do well in stocks, but the limit is 100x the household median income, regardless of the lowest paid employee.

According to the internet, the median household income is about $78,000.  So you would cap everyone's income at $7,800,000?

---

They are capped to 100x the household median income, no matter what.

---

So, they could own a couple companies, or do well in stocks, but the limit is 100x the household median income, regardless of the lowest paid employee.

According to the internet, the median household income is about $78,000.  So you would cap everyone's income at $7,800,000?

Trevor is about to be really upset when he's up for a new contract.

---

They are capped to 100x the household median income, no matter what.

---

So, they could own a couple companies, or do well in stocks, but the limit is 100x the household median income, regardless of the lowest paid employee.

But how does that help? They already have a pile of wealth that would keep growing, and, as I said, they can simply fund their political activities from their business rather than their personal wealth, and they would probably spend the same amount of money, asking for the same things.

To what end? If you put a cap on political spending.... no super pacs... No corporate donations. Just a max of 5% of yearly individual income, you have now completely undermined the capacity of the wealthy to tilt the field. Sure, they have a small advantage, but it's not what they currently experience. Even more, what are they going to influence? They don't need to make their businesses giant anymore. There's a limit to their wealth. Again, you don't tax the excess wealth. You let the government approve certain public goods... healthcare, roads, parks, libraries/tech rooms, and allow them to donate to any cause they want. They can give away their excess money to people. However, what's most likely to happen is that they just try to raise the lowest paid workers income to get to raise their income. You want the wealth funneling back into the people. 

Also, over time, they still get the mansions and yachts. Think about it... you're making 7.8 million a year for 10-20 years. If you actually manage your money well, you could make 100 million in a lifetime and spend it on the things you want. It gives people a way to be ambitious, but limits abuse. 

Who cares what Trevor gets. We would get the exact same product paying these players 250k a year. Now, there's a reality that he'd just move overseas and play somewhere else for more money, but that's not an important issue to me. 

Here are the problems from what I can tell. Current businesses would want to seek countries that let them maximize their profits. To that, I say who cares? There is no shortage of entrepreneurs in this country. We'd have a new wal-mart tomorrow. We also have the size and capacity to make most of our own stuff.

---

But how does that help? They already have a pile of wealth that would keep growing, and, as I said, they can simply fund their political activities from their business rather than their personal wealth, and they would probably spend the same amount of money, asking for the same things.

To what end? If you put a cap on political spending.... no super pacs... No corporate donations. Just a max of 5% of yearly individual income, you have now completely undermined the capacity of the wealthy to tilt the field. Sure, they have a small advantage, but it's not what they currently experience. Even more, what are they going to influence? They don't need to make their businesses giant anymore. There's a limit to their wealth. Again, you don't tax the excess wealth. You let the government approve certain public goods... healthcare, roads, parks, libraries/tech rooms, and allow them to donate to any cause they want. They can give away their excess money to people. However, what's most likely to happen is that they just try to raise the lowest paid workers income to get to raise their income. You want the wealth funneling back into the people. 

Also, over time, they still get the mansions and yachts. Think about it... you're making 7.8 million a year for 10-20 years. If you actually manage your money well, you could make 100 million in a lifetime and spend it on the things you want. It gives people a way to be ambitious, but limits abuse. 

Who cares what Trevor gets. We would get the exact same product paying these players 250k a year. Now, there's a reality that he'd just move overseas and play somewhere else for more money, but that's not an important issue to me. 

Here are the problems from what I can tell. Current businesses would want to seek countries that let them maximize their profits. To that, I say who cares? There is no shortage of entrepreneurs in this country. We'd have a new wal-mart tomorrow. We also have the size and capacity to make most of our own stuff.

So you don't think all the people and businesses who create the jobs in this country would just move across the border to Mexico or Canada and bring immense wealth and jobs to Mexico and Canada?  And you don't think that would throw a whole bunch of Americans out of work?

If I was Shad Khan, and you passed that law, I would immediately move the team to London.  And there'd be thousands of people and thousands of businesses right on his heels.

And as far as "We'd have a new Wal-Mart tomorrow..." no we would not.  It would never happen, because no one would be allowed to make enough money to accumulate the capital to start a new Wal-Mart.  And the people who would be starting this new Wal-Mart wouldn't be allowed to make more than $7.8 million a year, so they just wouldn't bother anyway.  They'd be looking to start something overseas.

---

Wow.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

To what end? If you put a cap on political spending.... no super pacs... No corporate donations. Just a max of 5% of yearly individual income, you have now completely undermined the capacity of the wealthy to tilt the field. Sure, they have a small advantage, but it's not what they currently experience. Even more, what are they going to influence? They don't need to make their businesses giant anymore. There's a limit to their wealth. Again, you don't tax the excess wealth. You let the government approve certain public goods... healthcare, roads, parks, libraries/tech rooms, and allow them to donate to any cause they want. They can give away their excess money to people. However, what's most likely to happen is that they just try to raise the lowest paid workers income to get to raise their income. You want the wealth funneling back into the people. 

Also, over time, they still get the mansions and yachts. Think about it... you're making 7.8 million a year for 10-20 years. If you actually manage your money well, you could make 100 million in a lifetime and spend it on the things you want. It gives people a way to be ambitious, but limits abuse. 

Who cares what Trevor gets. We would get the exact same product paying these players 250k a year. Now, there's a reality that he'd just move overseas and play somewhere else for more money, but that's not an important issue to me. 

Here are the problems from what I can tell. Current businesses would want to seek countries that let them maximize their profits. To that, I say who cares? There is no shortage of entrepreneurs in this country. We'd have a new wal-mart tomorrow. We also have the size and capacity to make most of our own stuff.

So you don't think all the people and businesses who create the jobs in this country would just move across the border to Mexico or Canada and bring immense wealth and jobs to Mexico and Canada?  And you don't think that would throw a whole bunch of Americans out of work?

If I was Shad Khan, and you passed that law, I would immediately move the team to London.  And there'd be thousands of people and thousands of businesses right on his heels.

And as far as "We'd have a new Wal-Mart tomorrow..." no we would not.  It would never happen, because no one would be allowed to make enough money to accumulate the capital to start a new Wal-Mart.  And the people who would be starting this new Wal-Mart wouldn't be allowed to make more than $7.8 million a year, so they just wouldn't bother anyway.  They'd be looking to start something overseas.

Sure, Marty... no one would rather make 7.8 million dollars a year instead of 30k. Why would anyone want that? 

Also, why wouldn't they have the capital to create another Walmart? The business can still make and save money. I'm only talking about what a person takes home. Any attempts to circumvent that, like trying to have your business pay for your house, car, or travel, would count as income. 

You guys are so conditioned to believe we need billionaires... we don't. Money, just like ideas, is utilized best by having more people have access to it, not less. The elites absolutely exploit their leverage to get rich in ways that most of us could do if we had the capital. It's not rocket science. Does that mean we would? No. But opening up those possibilities is a good start. 

My number one gripe with conservatives is that we are unwilling to move off of the position that people can be indiscriminately wealthy. They will eventually use this power and wealth to discriminate against others. It's how humans work. 

I do think there are some potential exploits, but we can't just keep twiddling our thumbs, believing everything is figured out.

---

But how does that help? They already have a pile of wealth that would keep growing, and, as I said, they can simply fund their political activities from their business rather than their personal wealth, and they would probably spend the same amount of money, asking for the same things.

To what end? If you put a cap on political spending.... no super pacs... No corporate donations. Just a max of 5% of yearly individual income, you have now completely undermined the capacity of the wealthy to tilt the field. Sure, they have a small advantage, but it's not what they currently experience. Even more, what are they going to influence? They don't need to make their businesses giant anymore. There's a limit to their wealth. Again, you don't tax the excess wealth. You let the government approve certain public goods... healthcare, roads, parks, libraries/tech rooms, and allow them to donate to any cause they want. They can give away their excess money to people. However, what's most likely to happen is that they just try to raise the lowest paid workers income to get to raise their income. You want the wealth funneling back into the people. 

Also, over time, they still get the mansions and yachts. Think about it... you're making 7.8 million a year for 10-20 years. If you actually manage your money well, you could make 100 million in a lifetime and spend it on the things you want. It gives people a way to be ambitious, but limits abuse. 

Who cares what Trevor gets. We would get the exact same product paying these players 250k a year. Now, there's a reality that he'd just move overseas and play somewhere else for more money, but that's not an important issue to me. 

Here are the problems from what I can tell. Current businesses would want to seek countries that let them maximize their profits. To that, I say who cares? There is no shortage of entrepreneurs in this country. We'd have a new wal-mart tomorrow. We also have the size and capacity to make most of our own stuff.

If it really was possible to cap everyone's political spending to a % of their income, that would do most of the work of making the political playing field more fair.  But it's not really going to be possible to differentiate between political persuasion efforts and public education efforts.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Elaborate.

---